Appeal No. 2001-1930
Application No. 08/833,719
modified to play the edited material in the forward as well as in
the reverse direction.
Appellants further argue in their reply brief (pages 2-6)
that the Norton reference only stores the edited material and not
the source material as recited in claim 1. Thus, appellants
argue (id. at page 6) that “[t]he output file refers to the
edited material whilst the routing table refers to the unedited
material stored on the storage medium. By contrast, the Norton
et al. EDL only refers to the edited material, and thus Norton et
al. do not disclose or suggest the claimed routing table.”
We note that this is a new argument and was not presented in
the brief. Therefore, the examiner did not have an opportunity
to respond to this argument in the examiner’s answer.
Nevertheless, the examiner has already dealt with this argument
in the final rejection of claim 1, where the examiner gives a
detailed explanation regarding the edited material and the source
material being stored on the storage medium (Figure 2) in Norton,
see examiner’s answer at pages 3, 4 and 5. We agree with the
examiner’s position. We find that Norton at col. 2, lines 23-54,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007